Back
1995 Supreme(MP) 392
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
T. S. DOABIA
GHANSHYAM PURASWANI - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 811 Of 1988
Decided On : 03/23/1995
C.S.Dixit, R.D.Jain
Open spaces in a layout plan are to be preserved as shown in the plan, and the authorities have a duty to ensure that the residential area is not spoiled by unauthorized construction.
Headnote:
MUNICIPAL LAW - TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING - LAYOUT PLAN - DEVIATION - OPEN SPACES - PRESERVATION - PUBLIC INTEREST - LOCUS STANDI - INTERVENTION - SPOT INSPECTION - REMEDIAL MEASURES - BUILDING ACTIVITY - DEEMED SANCTION - COMPOUNDING OF VIOLATIONS - DISCRETION OF AUTHORITIES - PUBLIC INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner society, Basant Vihar Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha, Maryadit, Gwalior, submitted a layout plan for residential buildings to the Town and Country Planning Department and the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, for approval. The approvals were granted, and the society began developing the area. However, the Collector later canceled the society's license under Section 24 of the M. P. Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, alleging irregularities in the implementation of the scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the open spaces in the layout plan were to be preserved as shown in the plan and that any deviation from the plan would require remedial measures. The court also held that the authorities had a duty to ensure that the residential area was not spoiled by unauthorized construction and that the scheme was for the benefit of the residents of the locality.
Issues: 1. Whether the open spaces in the layout plan were to be preserved as shown in the plan? 2. Whether the authorities had a duty to ensure that the residential area was not spoiled by unauthorized construction? 3. Whether the scheme was for the benefit of the residents of the locality?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the principles of public interest and locus standi to hold that the open spaces in the layout plan were to be preserved as shown in the plan. The court held that the residents of the locality had a vital interest in seeing that any action destructive of the environment was set at naught and that they could not be deprived of the amenities reserved for them under the scheme. 2. The court relied on the principles of statutory duty and public interest to hold that the authorities had a duty to ensure that the residential area was not spoiled by unauthorized construction. The court held that the scheme was for the benefit of the residents of the locality and that the authorities had an obligation to enforce the scheme and not to act in breach thereof. 3. The court relied on the principles of public interest and benefit to hold that the scheme was for the benefit of the residents of the locality. The court held that the scheme was intended to ensure a quiet and healthy atmosphere for the residents and that any action that tended to defeat that object was invalid.
Final Decision: The court directed the Collector to conduct a spot inspection to determine if there was any deviation from the layout plan and to take remedial measures if necessary. The court also directed the Municipal Corporation to process the building application in accordance with the law and to take steps to compound the violations in the light of the principles laid down by the court.
( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of writ petition No. 1173 of 1988, (ii) Writ Petition No. 1183 of 1988, (iii) Writ Petition No. 988 of 1989, (iv) Writ Petition No. 164 of 1990, (v) Writ Petition No. 811 of 1988, (vi) Writ Petition No. 120 of 1988.
( 2 ) THE petitions at Sr. Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) deal with lay out plan and whether this plan is being observed in letter and spirit. Petition at Sr. No. (iv) deal with non-grant of prayer made in building application and petitions at Sr. Nos. (v) and (vi) deal with building activity taken in pursuance of concept of deemed sanction. These petitions are being dealt with accordingly.
( 3 ) WRIT Petition No. 1173 of 1988:- this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by Basant Vihar Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha, Maryadit, Gwalior. This is a society registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. With a view to develop certain area for residential buildings, a layout plan was submitted for approval to the Town and Country Planning Department. As per the petitioner society, the plan was approved and the lay out plan was sanctioned. Copy of this lay-out plan as sanctioned by the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Gwalior is said to be part of memorandum 2847 dated 4th of June, 1976. As per the petitioner society, sanction to this lay out plan was also to be granted by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior also and even this sanction was granted. Copy of this has been placed on record as Annexure P/14. It appears that attention of the Collector was drawn to certain irregularities committed by the society in the matter of implementation of the scheme. An order dated 25th of June, 1988 came to be passed. By this the licence granted to the petitioner society was cancelled. It is this order which is being impugned. The above action has been taken under Section 24 of the M. P. Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.
( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no opportunity was given to the society. He submits if spot inspection is done and measurements are taken at the site, it would be found that the lay out plan as sanctioned by the Town and Country Planning Department has not been deviated from in any manner. He also submits that there were some subsequent revisions made in the lay out plan and these are also required to be taken note of. According to him, the society is serious about seeing that the lay out plan as originally sanctioned and as later on legally amended is given effect to.
( 5 ) INTERVENTION applications have been preferred by certain persons who claim to be allottees in this colony. They are represented by their learned counsel.
( 6 ) ON behalf of these allottees it was argued that any illegality in the matter of implementation of the scheme cannot be permitted to be continued. According to him, whatever amenity has been provided scheme to the citizens under the scheme should be retained and they cannot be deprived of the amenities which have been originally provided in the scheme. He has also argued that there is a duty cast on the authorities to see that those amenities are available to the citizens and are not deleted in any manner.
( 7 ) THE plea raised by the allottees be noticed:- the residents of the locality are persons intimately, and vitally interested to see that any action destructive of the environment is set at naught. They cannot be deprived of the facilities reserved for them. While dealing with concept of locus standi in these cases the Supreme Court in Bangalore Medical Trust v. B. S. Muddappa, AIR 1991 SC 1902, in para 36 observed:-
( 8 ) WHAT was once a royal prerogative and symbol of aristocracy is an essential attribute of concept of equality to be enjoyed by all. As a matter of fact in Bangalore Medical Trust (supra) in para 37, it was said:-"public park as a place reserved for beauty and recreation was developed in 19th and 20th Cen
